Morgoth's Review offers a Non Politically Correct spin on news, politics and popular culture. If you are easily offended or of a Liberal persuasion this is not the place for you.

Friday, 22 January 2016

Race Is Only Skin Deep...Right?

Some of the most frequent, and stupidest, points
we come up against are the leftist cretins who say things like "What
difference does it make what colour people are?" or "You think
melanin causes crime?" or similar contemptible idiocy predicated on
the assumption that race really is nothing more than skin colour. That, by some
miracle, the end result of 75,000 years of divergent evolution in
isolation from each other was that all of the members of the human family
should arrive at the exact same end point, save for a few surface features for
the filtering of sunlight. This is, of course, nonsense. The "race
is only skin colour" meme is the cornerstone of the egalitarian
liberal's world view. Successfully attack that and their whole belief system
comes crashing own.

Setting out a detailed
summary of the genetic basis of 75,000 years of human evolution is beyond the
scope of this blog. Instead, I intend to provide a selection of information
which proves the biological reality of race. The bulk of the information in
this blog is drawn from two books, Phillipe J Rushton's Race, Evolution &
Behaviour, a pdf of which is available here, and Nick Wade's excellent "Genes, A Troublesome Inheritance" which
is available from your favourite bookshop or torrent site. For the sake of brevity I am not
going to link to the relevant scientific study for each point made in this
article. If you are interested in reading further, they all come from one of
those two books, both of which I highly recommend.

Homo
Sapiens arose in Africa 200,000 years ago. Around 70,000 years
ago a small band of a few hundred humans left Africa and went on to populate the other continents. Every
human being alive today, who is not a Sub Saharan African, is descended from
this small group of a few hundred souls. There is more genetic diversity within
Sub Saharan Africans than there is in the rest of the human race combined.
A Norwegian is more closely related to a Chinaman, or an Englishman to an
Afghan, than one African is to another. This is hardly surprising given that
the first two thirds of our evolutionary history were spent in Africa.

The physical differences between human populations are the easiest to prove, and the best starting point for someone who is new to, or positively hostile to, the subject of racial differences because they are measurable and irrefutable. Establish these physical differences, and it is only a short step to the racial differences in IQ and behavioural traits.The dominance of negroes in certain sports is a good starting point as it does not involve any overt claims of white racial supremacy.Every finalist in the Olympic men's 100 metre race since
1980 has been of west African ancestry. 80% of the winners of major long distance running events
since 1980 have been from the 0.6% of the world's population who are East
African West Africans are among the worst long distance
runners and East Africans are among the worst sprinters, with whites lying
somewhere between the two for both disciplines. The most committed anti racist
might argue that blacks excel at running because they train harder and have
fewer economic opportunities so focus on sports. However, this cannot explain
why negroes from different regions of Africa excel at different disciplines.
Evolutionary biology can. West Africans have longer limbs compared to their
trunks, higher bone density and more fast twitch muscle fibres. They also have
smaller lung capacity which is excellent for getting oxygen to the blood
quickly for a burst of speed, but poor for endurance. This explains why West
Africans excel at any sport requiring short, fast, bursts of high activity but
tend to be poor at sports involving endurance.
The converse is true of East Africans who have lighter frames, lower muscle
density and larger lung capacity making them excellent at endurance events but
poor at producing short bursts of high energy. Almost all American blacks
are of West African ancestry, which is why they excel at sports like American
Football and basketball which require short bursts of high energy.
However, their high bone density makes them poor at other sports like swimming.
Whites, on the other hand, have more slow twitch muscle fibres, which are
used for strength rather than speed causing whites to dominate sports
requiring pure strength such as weight lifting, field events and "The
World's Strongest Man" contests.We can only speculate as to the
evolutionary processes which produced these differences. It may have had
something to do with Africans' need to escape fast predators and
catch fast prey, and the Europeans' need to move heavy rocks and logs in
order to build shelters and ships. In any event, it is near
impossible to deny that the different races excel in different sports as a
result of their different physiologies. Stefan Molyneux has made an
excellent video on race and sport which is available here.

Once we have established
the physical differences cause by divergent evolution, it is a small step to
establish that divergent evolution has also caused intellectual and behavioural
differences between different population groups. The data on race and IQ is so well established.that
racial egalitarians cannot contest the data, and are restricted to attempting
to explain it away through risible nonsense such as cultural bias and stereotype
threat.

More nuanced is the issue of race and behaviour. It is widely theorised, not
least by Professor Rushton, that blacks favour an R reproductive strategy,
involving producing the maximum number possible number of offspring,
whereas whites and Asians favour a K reproductive strategy,
producing fewer offspring but committing greater resources to their upbringing
(see R vs K). Prof Rushton's book details a number of
measurable criteria which support this hypothesis. Blacks reach puberty at a
younger age, have their first sexual experiences at a younger age, are more
promiscuous, have a much higher rate of STDs, higher rates of illegitimacy,
less active parenting from fathers an so on .All of these phenomena are
observed in black people all over the world irrespective of the country or
culture they live in.

The different rates of
criminality between the races are well established and beyond sensible
argument, with US blacks being incarcerated at seven times the rate per
capita of US whites. Of more interest is the cause of this increased
incarceration. The cause is not poverty as poor whites have much lower levels
of criminality than poor blacks. The most likely causes of higher levels of
black criminality are increased testosterone, black testosterone levels are typically 15% to 20% higher
than those of whites, much higher rates of the MAO-A enzyme and the
HTR2B gene which are linked to increased aggression an violence (see Wade chapter
3), lower average IQ, higher rates of illegitimacy, poor impulse control and
inability to defer gratification. Stefan Molyneux has made another
excellent video on this subject which is available here.

By necessity, this piece is broader than it is deep. My primary goal was
to provide an overview of the biology of race and provide links
to more detailed sources for those who are interested in the subject.
I cannot recommend Rushton, Wade and Molyneux highly enough. They have
been the doors to many a race realist's epiphany. I apologise to those
among M Rev's uncommonly well informed readership who may
already know all of this, but this is stuff that everyone on the Alt Right
needs to know. Our objections to mass immigration are not about religion
or culture, or "British/American values". They are about race
and we should not be ashamed to say it, especially when armed with the
data to support our claims.

Blank slate notions of racial equality
and the interchangeability of all mankind are the fiction upon which modern
leftism is based. The issue of racial equality is the egalitarian left's
achilles heel and it is the issue upon which we must attack them. The time for
debate is over. The evidence is in. The races are fundamentally
biologically different. To argue otherwise is to be anti-science,
anti-evolution and wilfully blind of the obvious truth. To admit people of
inferior races into your country is to diminish the quality of your
country's population and weaken your country. The left have no response to this
beyond their worn out old battle cry of "You can't say that.
That's racist. I'm offended" which even middle of the road types
are now wise to and heartily sick of.

Let us fight with right
on our side. No sensible person can argue that the races are not
significantly different from one another. If accepting the clear and
unequivocal truth, as revealed by scientific data, makes me a racist
then I am proud to be one.